Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks
Northernhawk

Okay Our Defence?

Recommended Posts

Okay, since people who have just interjected themselves into this argument (nothing wrong with that, it is a message board) are having such a hard time figuring this out, it was HS-Bob who mentioned him scoring 15-20 goals on the previous page (sorry Bob, I'm not trying to call you out or anything).

 

My point is, it's a tall order alone to expect the kid to do that, let alone expect him to play solidly defensively, on the top line. Why is this so outrageous?

 

If he's on the top line and he's a scoring dynamo, he'll stick even if he sucks defensively (like Kane, who did suck defensively and along the boards early in his career). But again, I'm not counting on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, since people who have just interjected themselves into this argument (nothing wrong with that, it is a message board) are having such a hard time figuring this out, it was HS-Bob who mentioned him scoring 15-20 goals on the previous page (sorry Bob, I'm not trying to call you out or anything).

 

My point is, it's a tall order alone to expect the kid to do that, let alone expect him to play solidly defensively, on the top line. Why is this so outrageous?

 

If he's on the top line and he's a scoring dynamo, he'll stick even if he sucks defensively (like Kane, who did suck defensively and along the boards early in his career). But again, I'm not counting on that.

 

 

Interjecting?

 

I'm sorry, didn't realize I needed an invite. Good for you, you've never jumped into a debate.

 

 

But you're correct, hsbob did mention 15-20 first, so I do apologize.

 

He also mentioned defensive awareness, as did you. I did not, but we all know this is a requirement to play for Q. So yes, I do understand it's "not all about goals scored"

 

There's nothing "outrageous" about your opinion. That said, it's an opinion.

 

We all have them

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JMO....there's reason to hope things are not so dire, and that's simply because there are 5 top 6 players coming back.

 

Sure there's a hole in that 6th spot.... everyone would be happy if there was a proven stud there. But 5 out of 6 isn't the worst case scenario.

 

Chicago scored a second-best 235 goals in the West. This team has never had a problem scoring.

 

Toews/Kane/AP/AA and Hoss (who missed a good 1/4 of the year) scored 137 goals.

 

That number leaves out the hole on LW altogether. Without digging up every guys' number who took a shot at that LW.....lets go conservative and guess they got 14 goals all year from that spot. I mean, Ladd had 8 himself.

 

That puts the top two lines, with major issues, at 151....the rest of the team (D men included) chipped in 84.

 

Honestly, I'd be more concerned about the 27 goals missing from players we know are gone (TT, Shaw)....than fretting that there's little chance the major problem at LW can't produce the 20+ goals we will seem to need to compete.

 

The numbers say the 'hawks were 6th in GF/GP, and GF, and tied for 10th in GA and GA/GP.  In shots/GP they were 10th.  In SA/GP they were 24th.

I think it's safe to say that the hawks Team O was decent enough in scoring and over all they're at the cusp between top 3rd and middle 3rd in keeping the puck out of the net.  They were at least decent in converting their chances on O, but their shot suppression was bad--and was the lowest of any playoff team.

 

Ergo:  In terms of keeping the puck out of the net, it was way more on the G last year than the D, which bucked historic norms.

 

Replacing the goals from the lost players IMHO is secondary to getting back to a historic level of shot suppression.  Campbell should address that in not only being defensively sound, but also his transition game. I think that will help the cause a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers say the 'hawks were 6th in GF/GP, and GF, and tied for 10th in GA and GA/GP.  In shots/GP they were 10th.  In SA/GP they were 24th.

I think it's safe to say that the hawks Team O was decent enough in scoring and over all they're at the cusp between top 3rd and middle 3rd in keeping the puck out of the net.  They were at least decent in converting their chances on O, but their shot suppression was bad--and was the lowest of any playoff team.

 

Ergo:  In terms of keeping the puck out of the net, it was way more on the G last year than the D, which bucked historic norms.

 

Replacing the goals from the lost players IMHO is secondary to getting back to a historic level of shot suppression.  Campbell should address that in not only being defensively sound, but also his transition game. I think that will help the cause a lot. 

 

Agreed on Campbell  

 

Being fair with the argument on the O... it should be remembered that the PP was at one point at or near the top of the NHL, which had to have many a Hawks fan scraping their jaws off the ground.

 

They did struggle scoring 5 on 5, but to me, a goal is a goal is a goal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interjecting?

 

I'm sorry, didn't realize I needed an invite. Good for you, you've never jumped into a debate.

 

 

But you're correct, hsbob did mention 15-20 first, so I do apologize.

 

He also mentioned defensive awareness, as did you. I did not, but we all know this is a requirement to play for Q. So yes, I do understand it's "not all about goals scored"

 

There's nothing "outrageous" about your opinion. That said, it's an opinion.

 

We all have them

 

Never said you needed an invite. To be fair, I did write "(which is fine, it is a message board)" in prior post, but I digress -- I was simply saying, it'd be nice if people read a little bit before assigning other people's positions -- just a suggestion. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on Campbell  

 

Being fair with the argument on the O... it should be remembered that the PP was at one point at or near the top of the NHL, which had to have many a Hawks fan scraping their jaws off the ground.

 

They did struggle scoring 5 on 5, but to me, a goal is a goal is a goal.

Exactly.  The team was 2nd on the PP with a 23.1% conversion.  The team was 22nd on the PK, with an 80.3% kill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vesey was coveted by multiple NHL teams and his size and speed made him ideal before any of our prospects. To sit here and pretend he wouldn't have been our best prospect had we gotten him is utterly absurd.

 

Again, yes, you do -- if you are expecting him to stick on the 1LW and score 20 goals. Not to call anyone out, but look at the previous page -- no hypocrisy at all and yes, it has been suggested. Try reading the prior posts before jumping in and labeling someone hypocritical. Also, it's been suggested that Toews will play between two rookies next season also in other threads on the forum. At least I introduce stances I've actually seen on this particular board (not HF boards or anywhere else). This is the only board I visit.

Vesey still hasn't played 1 NHL game. So regardless of what anyone thinks of him - he has proved nothing in the NHL. To sit here and continue to tell me what I think is absurd as well. I keep telling you what I think and you keep telling me I don't think that. lol.

 

I simply stated the fact that you slotted Vesey into the 1LW spot and said he made this team a legit Cup Contending team and that he hasn't played in the NHL yet. You saying people were jumping the fence while you used the words - maybe I'm jumping the fence - is hypocritical in my opinion because it says - my jumping the fence is valid and no one else's is. And that's a far jump from him just being seen as our best prospect had he come to this team. Being the missing piece to get a team to contend is  a far cry from being able to contribute - which what I've been saying this entire time about the prospects. Yet - I'm the one who wants someone to be the rookie Patrick Kane?

 

Again, there is no if. I don't expect the kid to score 15-20 goals or stick on 1LW all season. If Bob said that then that's Bob's opinion. He's awesome and good lookin' ( :P ) - but I'm not him. Which again, how is that suggestion paramount to wanting someone to be the next Kane or Panarin and your same suggestion with Vesey isn't? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you (or anyone else) can have a high opinion on Motte, and it's okay; but me having a high opinion on Vesey is "hypocritical." I'll illustrate this point with this question: so if you had the choice, you'd take Motte over Vesey? You think Motte would have been coveted as much so by multiple scouts and multiple front offices if he was in Vesey's exact position this off-season? Again, it's absurd. If you had to bet money on who has the better chance on panning out in the NHL, and you picked Motte ahead of Vesey, not only would I completely take the bet against but multiple front-offices, scouts, and coaches would bet against you too -- so to say it's "hypocritical" for me to simply value Vesey ahead of Motte (when pretty much every professional opinion is doing the same around the league) is asinine and nonsensical. NHL experience aside, Vesey is no ordinary prospect like Motte and Schmaltz are; and that's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a plethora of front office, personnel, scouts, coaches, and GM's. NHL experience is important for all prospects, but even more so for prospects who aren't as good as Vesey (i.e. Motte and the grand majority in the NHL).

 

That was the argument at hand. You keep implying that "no one said that" or "I didn't say that" so I just told you who did and why it was a part of my argument (against).

Edited by Granada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said you needed an invite. To be fair, I did write "(which is fine, it is a message board)" in prior post, but I digress -- I was simply saying, it'd be nice if people read a little bit before assigning other people's positions -- just a suggestion. Cheers.

 

That's all good G... I backtracked and read the entire thread and fessed up to missing Bob's post.

 

But still.... you express dismay over posters jumping into a debate? Go find a mirror. And then you post a dismissive comment about how others have such a hard time "figuring things out"

 

Your opinion is your opinion. When you want to be dismissive you use the  ^  symbol under the post you want to crap on and flame away.

 

When you agree with another poster, you quote their entire post and toss out phrases like "This is exactly right"

 

 

Been here a long time. I consider that lame.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you (or anyone else) can have a high opinion on Motte, and it's okay; but me having a high opinion on Vesey is "hypocritical." I'll illustrate this point with this question: so if you had the choice, you'd take Motte over Vesey? You think Motte would have been coveted as much so by multiple scouts and multiple front offices if he was in Vesey's exact position this off-season? Again, it's absurd. If you had to bet money on who has the better chance on panning out in the NHL, and you picked Motte ahead of Vesey, not only would I completely take the bet against but multiple front-offices, scouts, and coaches would bet against you too -- so to say it's "hypocritical" for me to simply value Vesey ahead of Motte (when pretty much every professional opinion is doing the same around the league) is asinine and nonsensical. NHL experience aside, Vesey is no ordinary prospect like Motte and Schmaltz are; and that's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a plethora of front office, personnel, scouts, coaches, and GM's. NHL experience is important for all prospects, but even more so for prospects who aren't as good as Vesey (i.e. Motte and the grand majority in the NHL).

 

That was the argument at hand. You keep implying that "no one said that" or "I didn't say that" so I just told you who did and why it was a part of my argument (against).

Wow. lol.

 

The post I made on this subject was to tell Bob that I understood what he was trying to say and that I found it laughable that someone would think anyone felt like any of the new prospects were going to come in and be Kane and Panarin good in their rookie seasons. I stand behind that 1 billion percent. I still don't think Bob said that. He might have said he doesn't see why Motte can't come in and get 15-20 goals and I still don't see how that equates to saying he thinks he's going to come in and be Kane and/or Panarin. So to me no one did say that. 

 

You, in several replies, said -if you think... So I explicitly said what I thought and then you said "Again, yes you do if" There's no need for if's or assumptions if you just go by what I say - cause I mean it when I say it. 

 

Pretty sure the only comment I ever made about Vesey was in reply to people blaming him choosing NYR over the BHs because of Stan dropping the ball and the team being terrible last year. And talking (like you just did) about how I heard a lot of people talk about him and they brought up about how his upside could be matched by others and Motte and Schmaltz were two names (amongst others) that were brought up. That was as far into that as I got. And I'm positive I didn't express an opinion either way about how you feel about Vesey. I simply stated facts. You said he would be the 1LW and make the team a cup contender. Fact. He hasn't played an NHL game. Fact. You said I expected prospects to come in and be Kane (his rookie season). Fact. I never said that and don't think that. Fact. 

 

You can spin this any way you would like but you are now making this a Motte vs Vesey being the better prospect argument and it never was. 

 

You are not going to change my mind. I still find it hypocritical that you can be sure of what a person will do in the NHL to the point you think he would make the team a contender (cause they aren't without him) and then turn around and tell other people to stop jumping fences about prospects and being unrealistic. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we're blaming TT's struggles on Toews and Hossa. Well, at least that's new compared to the "Q never gave him a chance" excuse.

TT was a bust here. The guy was labeled the next Kane (because of his size and skill), but he never materialized here and he was traded (rightfully so in my view). The end.

Again, I'm not dismissing them: I am being realistic. I don't expect Motte to stick on the 1st line the entire regular season; he might see time there, but I'm not expecting him to stick there because it would be equivalent to expecting him to be the next Kane; the guy would have to be, in order to stick on the first line all year without having any NHL experience and being 20/21 years old -- I'm sorry, but it's true.

Aren't you expecting Vesey to be the next Kane when you slot him right into the Hawks top line too? Motte and Schmatlz had similar stats at much younger ages and Vesey shoulda been good last year.......he's a 23yro college kid for cryin out loud! The end.

Do like any BH prospect?

GO HAWKS!!!!!

Edited by hsbob
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panarin is a pigeon in the hand and Vesey is a sparrow on the roof.

The only thing they have in common is they're both 23.

GO HAWKS!!!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing they have in common is they're both 23.

GO HAWKS!!!!!

Do you mean when they both signed an NHL contract? Cause Pan is 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean when they both signed an NHL contract? Cause Pan is 24.

I didn't check the Breadman's B-day before I posted but won't both players be starting their NHL careers at twenty three years of age?

GO HAWKS!!!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda funny as much as I like Motte, his supposed work ethic. I just don't see him more than bottom six this season with Hartman. Who wins first line LW is a crap shoot. The whole team beyond the core for now is a guessing game. The only sure thing is that rookies will get opportunities and that as fans we can hope some will live up to the hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't sense a whole lot of hype here on these boards. More "anti-hype" than anything.

Still.... agree as most here do that the play of the rookies on this year's squad will have a lot to do with the end result whether good or bad

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are not going to change my mind. I still find it hypocritical that you can be sure of what a person will do in the NHL to the point you think he would make the team a contender (cause they aren't without him) and then turn around and tell other people to stop jumping fences about prospects and being unrealistic. 

 

 

I don't know why you have this obsession with painting me a hypocrite and trying to make this personal, but you can call me one all you want if it really matters that much to you.

 

Anyways, you're the one who brought up Vesey in this thread. I am defending myself and using Motte as an example as my rebuttal. This isn't rocket science: I value Vesey more over Motte, even though both have extremely limited NHL experience, because Vesey is coveted around the league. I would prefer and take Vesey over any one of our prospects, and many NHL GM's and scouts would agree with me. It's a lot less unfathomable to assume Vesey would stick on a first line in the NHL than any one of our prospects.

 

Vesey could very well crap out, but again, if I'm betting on who would do well and be able to stick on a first line between Vesey and any one of our prospects, I'm choosing Vesey all day, just as I did when the Hawks were rumored to get him; and just as I am doing now that the Hawks won't -- because even though his NHL experience is on par with a guy like Motte's, his size, speed, and skill separate him from the grand majority of prospects not only on the Hawks, but around the league -- this is undeniable and the opinion is unanimous among professional GM's, coaches, and scouts.

Edited by Granada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you expecting Vesey to be the next Kane when you slot him right into the Hawks top line too? Motte and Schmatlz had similar stats at much younger ages and Vesey shoulda been good last year.......he's a 23yro college kid for cryin out loud! The end.

Do like any BH prospect?

GO HAWKS!!!!!

 

No, I was expecting Vesey to be the next Saad.  :D

 

In reality though, I really was -- he has the size and speed, etc. And, he blows all other prospects out of the water (in my opinion); it's not just me saying it, but people around the league. There's a reason why this guy was so coveted; perhaps that reason will show itself to be unfounded in the future, but where everything stands now, he is projected to be very successful. We'll see.

 

I'll say it again: I'm expecting a lot more out of a guy like Hartman than I am Motte and Schmaltz. So I guess you can say, I "like" Hartman (at least from what I've seen from him thus far), and if he is able to solidify a spot on the third line, I would consider that a success and more realistic than Motte or Schmaltz sticking on the first line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all good G... I backtracked and read the entire thread and fessed up to missing Bob's post.

 

But still.... you express dismay over posters jumping into a debate? Go find a mirror. And then you post a dismissive comment about how others have such a hard time "figuring things out"

 

Your opinion is your opinion. When you want to be dismissive you use the  ^  symbol under the post you want to crap on and flame away.

 

When you agree with another poster, you quote their entire post and toss out phrases like "This is exactly right"

 

 

Been here a long time. I consider that lame.

 

I use the ^ simply because it saves space on the page and it's pointless to "quote" the person when I know I will be replying to said person immediately after anyway, so you're wrong to assume there's an ulterior motive there (as are your other assumptions), but I'll just leave it at that.

 

Consider it "lame" all you want, but that post your talking about that I "agreed with" was separated by multiple posts, hence the quote was warranted. 

 

You're seeing things that aren't there. Think you need to read the thread once again. Perhaps try attacking the argument and not the person, and you won't fall into always having to back track.

Edited by Granada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you have this obsession with painting me a hypocrite and trying to make this personal, but you can call me one all you want if it really matters that much to you.

 

Anyways, you're the one who brought up Vesey in this thread. I am defending myself and using Motte as an example as my rebuttal. This isn't rocket science: I value Vesey more over Motte, even though both have extremely limited NHL experience, because Vesey is coveted around the league. I would prefer and take Vesey over any one of our prospects, and many NHL GM's and scouts would agree with me. It's a lot less unfathomable to assume Vesey would stick on a first line in the NHL than any one of our prospects.

 

Vesey could very well crap out, but again, if I'm betting on who would do well and be able to stick on a first line between Vesey and any one of our prospects, I'm choosing Vesey all day, just as I did when the Hawks were rumored to get him; and just as I am doing now that the Hawks won't -- because even though his NHL experience is on par with a guy like Motte's, his size, speed, and skill separate him from the grand majority of prospects not on the Hawks, but around the league -- this is undeniable and the opinion is unanimous among professional GM's, coaches, and scouts.

Vesey's an older,bigger player and he's definitely rated higher than both of our recent NCAA additions but since all three players have similar numbers,I have to believe his age and size have a lot to do with that higher ranking and rightly so. IMO Vesey's higher ranking still has nothing to do with the ability of Schmaltz and Motte(both rated fairly high themselves)to pick-up the system and contribute sooner rather than later.

 

 

GO HAWKS!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's fine Bob. I'd disagree though and say that his skill and ability has something to do with it also, but that's totally your prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I was expecting Vesey to be the next Saad.  :D

 

In reality though, I really was -- he has the size and speed, etc. And, he blows all other prospects out of the water (in my opinion); it's not just me saying it, but people around the league. There's a reason why this guy was so coveted; perhaps that reason will show itself to be unfounded in the future, but where everything stands now, he is projected to be very successful. We'll see.

 

I'll say it again: I'm expecting a lot more out of a guy like Hartman than I am Motte and Schmaltz. So I guess you can say, I "like" Hartman (at least from what I've seen from him thus far), and if he is able to solidify a spot on the third line, I would consider that a success and more realistic than Motte or Schmaltz sticking on the first line.

There's no doubt that Vesey was sought after and I woulda' liked him on our roster myself. Earlier in the thread I said that one of the young guys would have to pot 15-20,win puck battles and play decent defensively to have a shot at sticking on the top line and you told me that I'm describing Patrick Kane since he potted 21 his rookie season. I'm not sure about that Granada,I'm almost describing Andrew Shaw more than anyone else since he's been between 14-20 goals through 41/2 seasons and was able to win puck battles himself. Was he also good defensively..........he did skate on a cup-winning shut-down line.

I'll assume you'll ask me why he couldn't stick either if he did these things and I'll mention he was the team's 1LW during the 12 game streak and might have if Ladd wasn't acquired.

 

 

 

 

GO HAWKS!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's fine Bob. I'd disagree though and say that his skill and ability has something to do with it also, but that's totally your prerogative.

 

I've never questioned his skill and ability,I've only pointed out that his age and size give him an edge with GM's when they consider his readiness and they very well might give him an edge on the ice too. We really agree on Vesey,we just disagree on whether Motte and Schmaltz can contribute sooner rather than later.........should be fun to watch!

 

 

 

GO HAWKS!!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the topic, I looked up some numbers with respect to the 'hawks ranking since the year before we started out playoff runs:

Year - GF/GP - SF/GP - GA/GP - SA/GP
2016 - 6 - 10 - 10 - 24
2015 - 17 - 1 - 2 - 22
2014 - 2 - 3 - 12 - 4
2013 - 2 - 5 - 1 - 4
2012 - 6 - 7 - 22 - 9
2011 - 4 - 5 - 12 - 6
2010 - 3 - 1 - 5 - 1
2009 - 4 - 5 - 5 - 8
2008 - 10 - 22 - 20 - 14

 

Some interesting things can be pulled by comparing the league ranking in all of the seasons.  The biggest one I see is the disparity the past two years in shot suppression vs. all of the others.  Even back in 2008 (when we were like 3 points out of a playoff slot), the D which had a young Keith and Seabs anchoring it was still mid-tier in terms of shot suppression, and then they were top-10 in shot suppression until 2015.  In 2015 and 2016 the shot suppression literally fell off of a cliff.

 

I think this should affect the concerns of the D moving forward, because the 3 anchor guys (Keith, Seabs, and Hjammer) have been the anchors for the bulk of that period.  Campbell next year certainly should help, But, when it comes to the D en masse I don't think that we can come anywhere near claiming "any goaltender would work for us"--at least anymore.  The shot suppression needs to climb back up the cliff before the team can think as such--especially give the fact that the numbers prove the 2015 Jennings had a lot more to do with Crawford than the 2013 (and Montreal was ranked 21st in SA/GP in 2015 where Price shared the Jennings with Crawford).  Further, it proves that Crawford being 5th in the Vezina and recently ranked 7th overall amongst netminders is not a fluke. 

 

Since it's been 2 years in a row, it could still be an anomaly in the D-core given the amount of hockey played, but there's a real chance it could be the overall team D in a major regression which may require 1 or more high-end players to pull the team out and back to at least the middle-tier, much less top-tier.  If it is an anomaly and the D goes back to sheltering the netminder, then yes, the netminder position can be cheap and expendable. But if it's not an anomaly and the D did regress with respect to shot suppression I think the time has to be now for looking into D prospects that can take over a top and 2nd pairing slot--and if the team still has to be competitive they have to do it while maintaining at least a 5-15 ranked netminder (be it Crawford or if Darling manages to take the reigns). 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×